Assessing NGRI and dangerousness: Perspectives from forensic reports in Portugal

In Portugal the expert whose report supports the criminal defence of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) must also consider the defendant's dangerousness. Nevertheless, the concept of dangerousness has received little attention in the Portuguese critical literature. Moreover, there is concern that the concept is often used improperly. We endeavoured to evaluate a sample of Portuguese forensic reports in order to discuss: 1) the prevalence of defendants who were considered guilty, NGRI, and dangerous; 2) which treatments were proposed; and 3) the frequency of technical errors found. We analysed 124 case folders from the year 2006, from both mainland Portugal and the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores, which included an evaluation of dangerousness of the defendants. These 124 cases were analysed using frequencies, correlations and multiple logistic regressions. The majority of the defendants were male and single. Thirty-nine percent (39%) were considered NGRI. A total of 34% of the defendants were considered dangerous or no dangerousness could be excluded. In 66% of cases treatment was recommended but in only 9% was admission to a forensic hospital recommended. Technical errors in the forensic reports, both of format and content, were identified in 26% of the 124 cases, the incidence of errors being high in reports from certain institutions. The majority of the forensic reports did not discuss the educational background of the defendants or their criminal history/records. We conclude that the experience of the expert is crucial in producing an appropriate report. The establishment of uniform criteria for the preparation of forensic reports and enhanced training of psychiatrists in forensic psychiatry should be considered as possible strategies to improve the accuracy of forensic reporting, particularly when assessing dangerousness.